This is a placeholder text
Group text
by joanro on 01 August 2016 - 20:08
There's no end to her lies and criminal behavior...
by joanro on 01 August 2016 - 20:08
It's her who's in bed with russia.... As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton spearheaded U.S. involvement in a Russian government technology initiative called Skolkovo. The Russian government’s stated goal for Skolkovo, touted as “innovation city,” was to be the Russian equivalent of America’s Silicon Valley. Skolkovo housed more than 30,000 workers in state-of-the-art facilities under Kremlin control. Despite the FBI and the U.S. Army warning that Skolkovo could be used by Russia to accelerate its military technological capabilities, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her campaign manager developed alarming relationships with Kremlin-controlled entities.
by Noitsyou on 01 August 2016 - 20:08
by joanro on 01 August 2016 - 20:08
Typical deflection....unable to speak to facts reveiled.
by Noitsyou on 02 August 2016 - 00:08
Facts? You have a news story on a report from an "institute". The report is written by an editor of Breitbart who is also the president of the institute. Hmmm, where is the journalistic impartiality in that? Did the reporter fact check? It even references the NY Post but the Post didn't do its own reporting, it's a complete rag anyway, but simply stated what was in the report.
The references in the report are weak. There are statements that should have references but don't. The NY Times ran a story on Podesta a few years ago so this isn't new stuff or even secret.
In this report it is stated that Podesta, "failed to disclose his membership on the board of Joule Stichting in his federal financial disclosure forms when he joined the Obama White House as a senior advisor.100"
I looked up the reference (the 100) and it doesn't refer to the financial disclosure or any document related to it. It's a false or wrong reference. Maybe he figured no one would check. Now, since I'm not a typical American who believes everything I read, and since I also have experience editing and fact checking, I decided to do something crazy: I looked up the financial disclosure form in question. It was easy since the government makes it readily available. Guess what I saw? He disclosed his membership on the board. This "journalist" couldn't do that as easily as I? Here's the link, it's on page 15. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1227013-john-podesta-white-house-financial-disclosure-form.html
Is this poor reporting or just flat out lying? Either way, I would never trust Breitbart for the facts.
by joanro on 02 August 2016 - 00:08
Keep deflecting and vote for the slime bag, it's your future and that of your offspring you're throwing to the cannibles. I've lived a good life in a great country....you won't be able to say the same if you have that sorry excuse for a human in the wh.
by Noitsyou on 02 August 2016 - 01:08
Fact: Podesta did disclose it as evidenced by the financial disclosure I posted a link to.
Fact: I read the report and Joan, be honest, you didn't. You just read ABOUT the report.
Fact: the report was not fact checked with a fine toothed comb. I proved that.
So go and actually check the disclosure form and then come back and tell me I'm wrong. That is, if you aren't afraid of the truth.
by Noitsyou on 02 August 2016 - 16:08
Now we have these shameless attacks on the Khan family by the right-wing media. One thing they say is that the Khan family exposed themselves to this attack by Trump because they used their dead son for political reasons. Two things, one, if so then why not attack the Khans politics instead of attacking them with bigotry? Two, did Hillary attack the families and friends of those who died in Benghazi even though they "used" their dead family members for political reasons? That's an example of who the adult in the room is when talking of Trump and Clinton.
We also have these attacks on Mr. Khan for being in bed with the Saudis and even having terrorist ties. Really? There is no evidence of anything nefarious. Ties with the Saudis? You mean the country which we consider an ally? Trump does business with the Saudis and others in the Middle East. So any time any of us puts gas in our cars we must have ties with the Saudis, right? Or do we also have to be Muslims for that to be true?
And you Joan, you willingly join the bigot brigade and insult the family of someone who died protecting your right to insult his family. Ironic that he was also a Muslim. You talk about what's wrong with America; how about the fact people worship someone who mocks POWs and the families of dead soldiers. Not only do they worship him but they defend him, taking a road just as low as his to do so. Not only has he shown this disrespect for the military but he also said during a debate, so it is verifiable, that he would order American soldiers to commit war crimes. So he assumes that they lack the integrity to disobey orders that are illegal and immoral. This is the person you want in charge. I wouldn't be surprised if you agree that we should ignore military law and the Geneva Conventions. I mean, the whole lead by example thing is so un-American.
by joanro on 02 August 2016 - 17:08
Right on cue, more deflection with the ad hominem attacks and vitriol.... But never the truth.
Worry about your self and your off spring, because you and your's are in for a cesspool of a country if you get your wish.
by joanro on 02 August 2016 - 17:08
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top